Re: IBM i for Wintel Hackers - Silent Signal TROOPERS24 Presentation

[Mark Waterbury <mark.s.waterbury@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Mark,

I do not find your opinion to be "contrary" to what I wrote.   Specifically, I suggested fully qualifying the names of IBM APIs or other IBM supplied routines that could otherwise be "intercepted" by manipulating the *LIBL.

And I said that use of the *LIBL is probably "fine" for "normal" applications.

All the best,


Mark S. Waterbury

> On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 01:13:58 PM EDT, mlazarus <mlazarus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

  I'm going to be a contrarian here.  I think that, other than a few 
unique situations, it's not good advice to have to qualify all your 
objects.  The *LIBL is a wonderful feature that is unmatched on Unix and 
Windows platforms.  The path environment variable is a poor substitute.

  The alternative is to have a proper authority scheme on your objects.  
Carol Woodbury, Steve Pitcher and others have given many seminars and 
webinars on how to do that.

  -mark

On 9/18/2024 11:44 AM, Mark Waterbury wrote:
> Hi, Rob,
>
> Short answer -- not all of the IBM objects of concern are in QSYS, QSYS2, QHLPSYS or QUSRSYS.
>
>
> Mark
>
>     
> > On Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at 10:34:50 AM EDT, Rob Berendt<robertowenberendt@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >       
> If it is primarily for IBM type library objects,
> and you have system value QSYSLIBL set sanely,
> how do they get something higher in the library list?
>